1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 21, 1991, the Plaintiff subscribed to the credit card holders of the Japan Bank Co., Ltd. and did not pay 600,000 won of the credit card price.

B. The credit card payment claim was successively transferred to the Liquidation Financial Corporation on December 30, 199, to the Korea Asset Management Corporation on December 28, 200, to the Defendant on September 18, 2012, and each of the above assignment of claims was notified to the Plaintiff.

C. On February 21, 2014, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order seeking the payment of credit card payment claim under the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014 tea5117, which, on February 25, 2014, the said court issued a payment order with the purport that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 1,151,309 won and 600,000 won with the interest of 18% per annum from January 29, 2004 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant payment order”). The instant payment order was finalized as it is.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 3, Eul evidence No. 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion was not served with the payment order of this case, and the credit card payment claim of this case has expired since 1993 when the payment was delayed due to the completion of the commercial statute of limitations from 5 years from 1993 when the payment was delayed. Therefore, compulsory execution under the payment order of this case

B. In a lawsuit of demurrer for the exclusion of enforcement force of the final and conclusive payment order for which the first order for payment was not served, its grounds for objection must be the grounds for extinguishing all or part of the claim indicated on the enforcement title or having the right to permanently or temporarily lose its validity, and the grounds for not being served lawfully do not constitute legitimate grounds for objection.

In addition, considering the purport of the whole argument in Gap evidence No. 1, the original copy of the instant payment order was served to the plaintiff's domicile.